A thoughtful compilation and analysis of some important, but underreported and under-researched news stories, with particular focus on keeping the People informed about all Enemies, Foreign and Domestic.

Anyone is free to comment on this site. Therefore, outgoing links posted by third parties may contain objectional material, but do not reflect the views of this site's owner. When linking to an outside page, links should not direct the reader to nude pictures, erotic stories, or other forms of pornography. Nor should links appear to sites using excessive profanity. Use common sense. If you would be ashamed for your church-going grandmother to see it, you shouldn't link to it. In addition to not linking to any inappropriate material, commenters should watch their language, else their posts will be deleted. Likewise, libelous statements will not be tolerated.

Sunday, April 03, 2005

Federal Government Has History of Ignoring Acts of War by Mexico

Still no major action by the U.S. government on the issue of the Mexican army being deployed on the border presumably to protect illegal Mexican migrants seeking to enter these United States in violation of our laws. This is an act of war, but I doubt Bush will do anything about it until they start shooting. But even then, I'm not so sure. Back in 2002, a Border Patrol agent reported that he had been fired upon by the Mexican military when he went to investigate their presence on United States soil. That in itself, if it was indeed the Mexican military, was a clear act of war. Something worthy of investigation, wouldn't you say? Apparently, though, we are accepting Mexico's version of events that the incident was not "an official incursion, but rather a case of criminals using military uniforms." That all happened under the Bush presidency. I am fearful that, if the Mexican army fires upon the Minutemen, Bush will be similarly deferential to Mexico's explanation of what happened (and that such actions were perfectly justified). Bush will then demonstrate how much of a fiscal conservative he is by not further investigating the incident since the Mexicans will have already done such a thorough job.---------U.S. demands probe of border 'act of war': Congressman leads crusade against latest Mexican military incursion deep in Arizona

This will sound very paranoid and conspiratorial. But what the hell does Bush have with Mexico. Why do we care so much about it. We have tons of our companies going over to them, giving them jobs and reducing industrial jobs in the U.S. And they still want to send people over here. Bush is from Texas, he should know about illegal immigration. So we will send 200,000 troops 10,000 miles away with no immediate and direct provocation by the "enemy", but we are too afraid to start a war that is close to us.

William of Ockham said that you should never multiply hypotheses beyond necessity --the simplest explanation is often the correct one simply because the probability is against two independent variables coinciding. The more variables that need to be satisfied to reach a conclusion, the less likely that conclusion is. In other words, if someone cut you off in traffic, stupidity and/or simple carelessness is a more likely explanation than malice.

But this is where Ockham's razor breaks down -- because there other explanations besides malice that could cause the other driver to cut you off. For example, you have 1.) accident/carelessness, 2.) malice, 3.) for the fun of it/ a rush, and 4.) willful negligence, as reasons they could cut you off, and this shows that we are really talking about two types of action, and that 'malice' is too specific and thus reduces the odds. The two sets of actions here are: unintentional, and intentional. Why do we assume, given a random person, that it is more likely that they will do something to you by accident rather than on purpose? You must know a lot of moral people if you assume that someone you encounter at random wouldn't do something to you if they thought they could get away with it. If this describes you, please tell me where you live. I would like to live there too.

This brings me to my next question: why are conspiracy theories automatically dismissed as invalid (genetic fallacy)? People look down their noises and sneer are conspiracy theories because they assume (incorrectly) that because some conspiracy theories require UFOs, etc., that all conspiracy theories are similarly far fetched (composition fallacy).

The fact is that given any action involving human beings, either it happens unintentionally, or by design. With just these facts, it is impossible to tell whether accident or design is more likely. The more facts you have, the better you can make a reasonable prediction. We tend to equate more reasonable explanations with 'more likely' but this is not necessarily the case. There are always people who will act in an unreasonable and random manner. That is why the chances of anything happening or not happening is never 100%.

So, anyway, I guess my major problem with so-called intellectual discussion in this country is that people fallaciously assume that if some event is much less empirically reasonable than another, then there is no chance it will happen. (Take Scriptor's conspiracy theory -- millions of Mexicans want to come to America and act on their own to make this happen. This makes it a reasonable conclusion that there is no design behind illegal immigration at all; it is just happening on its own. The government has an institutional ineptitude in many areas, there is no reason why the border would be any different. Therefore there can be no conspiracy [see how incomplete that reasoning sounds?]).

Now Scriptor prefaced his statement by warning that it might sound conspiratorial, because we as a society have been conditioned to think that conspiracy = invalid. This is not true. Now let's analyze the possibility that Jorge Bush does have 'something going on' with his ole pal Vicente Fox.

Congress has the express power to establish rules of naturalization. They have done this, we have specific rules that people must follow if they want to come to this country and become a citizen. Congress has the express power to call forth the militia to execute the laws of the union and to repel invasions.

What is going on on the Mexican border? Last year, more than 1 million were caught crossing the border. How many weren't caught? Mexico has now put its army on the border, not to stop people from unlawfully crossing, but to observe what happens to them on the U.S. side of the border (and to provide . . . cover fire? Logistical support? What?).

Consider the following definitions:

invasion:n. entrance as if to take possession, or overruncolonization:n. an act or instance of people moving to and living in a new territory but retaining strong ties with the parent culture or state; where such a territory is already inhabited, a necessary element of colonization is the displacement of the language/culture and/or legal structure in place before the colonization occurred.war, warfare:n. the waging of armed conflict against an entity.to make/levy war:v. to commence hostilities against an entity.

What do you think is happening on the border? Congress, in my opinion, has not taken a strong enough line on this issue, though it is within their enumerated powers to do so. The Constitution says "Congress shall have the power to call forth the militia to execute the laws of the union and to repel invasions", not "Congress shall call forth the militia to execute the laws of the union and to repel invasions."

The President is another matter. The President of these United States is required under the Constitution to carry out the laws of the Union. Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution commands that the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."

To not carry out this duty is a direct violation of the oath of office in which the President swears to "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and . . . preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." But it gets worse for the President. What if his failure to carry out his Article II duties facilitates acts of war against the United States? As I have said, a government that encourages its citizens to flood across its neighbor's borders in violation of their laws, even providing military support to do so is engaging in acts of war against its neighbor. President Bush's refusal to enforce the border, or the immigration laws not only violates his Article II duties, but it also aids the actions of the Mexican government (which are aimed at encouraging illegal immigration and crushing any resistance to it in the United States). Could this be treason? Article III states "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

Now, even assuming that Bush for some reason thinks that he can justify his breach of the article II duties of the President, why would he do so without some motivation? Assuming he is rational, even if Bush could weather the political fallout of his derelection of duty, he would not unless he had some compelling motivation to do so. For example, he could think it's necessary to the American economy (which is a fallacy – illegal immigration is causing border hospitals to go bankrupt since they are required to offer treatment regardless of nationality or ability to pay, and illegal immigration related crime is on the rise, further straining the social structures that we pay for with our money). Or he could, as Scriptor suggests, have some deal with Fox that, even if there is political fallout, it will be worth the risk to just ignoring the border situation. Likewise goes for business who profit from illegal immigrant labor. There are several motivations Bush could have, but this is most likely not happening by accident. I favor Scriptor's theory myself, because, though the other reasons I talked about are also plausible, the fact that Mexico thinks that it can use its army to affect actions on U.S. soil tells me that whatever is going on, Mexico is very likely in on it. Or try this: Multinational corporations, the Mexican government, and certain elements within the U.S. government (including the President) conspiring to weaken the political power of the individual American and increase government control over the citizens and exploit them for their wealth, with the primary beneficiaries being the multi-nationals, Mexico, and the federal government. Without more information, Ockham's Razor is starting to shave at my suggestion, so I'll just quit while I'm ahead.

Oh, one last thing for you to consider: If the Democrats really are an opposition party, and really hate Bush and everything he stands for, why aren't they using the border situation to impeach him for dereliction of duty or treason? Presumably, they can read, too. This is very important. We're talking incursion across our borders with the open support of a foreign power. The Democrats love to criticize Bush's efforts in Iraq, but at the same time look for ways to make themselves look stronger on national security. This situation is great for killing three birds with one stone. 1.) They could impeach the president, or at least have a legitimate grievance for their smear ads for a change, 2.) They could show the voters that they do care about national security -- more so than Bush, and 3.) They could re-solidify their support among Union voters, who have been growing more and more disillusioned with the Democratic Party over the last 15 years or so. If you think about it, it is so politically smart to attack Bush from this angel that to not do it means that the Democrats are either 1.) still genuinely opposed to Bush and just stupid, or 2.) Not really opposed to Bush at all (except in their rhetoric) and are actually in on whatever is going on.

What follows are the relevant sections from the Constitution:

Article ISection. 8. The Congress shall have Power:-Clause 4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization-Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; -Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, -Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Article. II.Section. 1. Clause 8: Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, [the president] shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Section. 2. Clause 1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

Section. 3. [The President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Article IIISection. 3. Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

"If you love wealth more than liberty,
the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom,
depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms.
Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest
lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."